[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora 9 32 or 64 Bit - Which One?



Kevin J. Cummings <cummings <at> kjchome.homeip.net> writes:
> If you are willing to deal with the issues, then x86_64 is for you.  If 
> not, then stick with the i386 stuff.

What issues?

> 1) My lappie has an ATI Mobile Radeon X1600 video system.  It worked on 
> FC6 using the fglrx driver from livna.  F9 upgraded Xorg to a version 
> that fglrx does not yet support.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with x86_64, it's exactly the same on F9 
i386.

> 2) Many firefox plugins require nspluginwrapper because there are no 
> x86_64 versions for them (Adobe Flash, Adobe Reader).  Getting it to 
> work correctly is straightforward and the Fedora Project Documentation 
> is correct if you follow it.

So what's the problem there?

> Sometimes Flash just doesn't work until I restart firefox.  And the Acrobat
> embedded reader can bring the laptop to its knees with some sort of memory
> leak.  Its also not as fast going through the nspluginwrapper.

But nspluginwrapper is used by default even on 32-bit installations for 
security reasons (because running the plugin in a separate process allows 
confining it with SELinux).

> Some people have configured their browsers to run acroread as an external
> application directly (instead of the embedded reader) to get around this.

Or just don't use acroread at all, that's what Okular and Evince are for.

Konqueror can even embed Okular as a KPart if that's important to you.

> 3) Sometimes sound gets screwed up in the browser (firefox).  Even when 
> using gecko-mediaplayer.  Restarting the browser, or sometimes 
> restarting the X session is necessary.

I don't think this is related to 64-bit either.

> 4) If you want to run vmware-server you might want to upgrade to the 
> version 2.0 BETA which has an X86_64 RPM.  (the version 1 version is 
> i386 only).  I had no trouble running the .i386 version of vmware-server 
> with the appropriate compatibility libraries.  Now I'm running the 
> x86_64 BETA and it runs my 32-bit virtual machine just fine.  You *MAY* 
> need to find the latest version of vmware-anyanyupdate (or you may not) 
> for vmware-server version 1.

So where's the problem?

> 5) Finding x86_64 versions of Firefox and Thunderbird ADDONs can be an 
> adventure.

OK, this is one valid argument. But the addons most people actually use should 
be available for x86_64.

> So can finding addons that support firefox 3.0 in some cases.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with x86_64, it's exactly the same on F9 
i386.

> 6) WINE is i386 only.  I tried to get sound working in WINE and 
> discovered that it wanted to drag in lots of i386 libraries, not all of 
> which were compatible with all of the x86_64 versions I have installed 
> (some from livna, some from atrpms, some from fedora).  I gave up on the 
> conflicts and continue to run wine without support for sound.

I don't know how you ended up with all those conflicts. You should not need 
anything not in Fedora to get sound in WINE working. "yum install 
alsa-plugins-pulseaudio.i386" should be enough, and that drags in only stuff 
from Fedora.

> 7) FC6 used cubbi-suspend2 kernels in order to suspend and hiberate 
> correctly.  I was unable to make the tuxonice kernels work for me on F9, 
> but the stock kernel support works fine with F9.  (It may not be as fast 
> as tuxonice, but it does suspend/hibernate and restore without any major 
> problems.)

This has nothing whatsoever to do with x86_64, it's exactly the same on F9 
i386.

> 8) My wireless is now much more reliable with F9, but that could be the 
> new iwl3945 driver and not the old ipw3945 driver.

This is actually a good thing, not a problem. :-) In any case, it's not 
x86_64-specific either.

        Kevin Kofler


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]